On 2024/10/08 23:36, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 01:19:52PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 12:41:16PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> One benefit of supporting something like pg_ls_summariesdir() is that
>>> it allows us to view the last modification time of each WAL summary file
>>> and estimate when they'll be removed based on wal_summary_keep_time.
>>>
>>> Of course, we could also extend the existing function to report
>>> the last modification time if this use case is valid, though.
>>
>> My argument is about knowing the size of each file, for monitoring of
>> disk space. The retention can be controlled by a GUC based on time,
>> and this function requires knowing about the file name format.
>
> Okay. I have no problem with adding something like pg_ls_summariesdir(),
> but I guess I was hopeful we could just add any missing information to the
> existing WAL summarization information functions. A new pg_ls_*dir()
> function would indeed fit nicely with the existing suite of generic file
> access functions.
>
> The patch posted upthread looks reasonable to me, so I'll go commit it soon
> unless there is any feedback.
Thanks! The patch looks good to me, too.
> IMHO we should consider alphabetizing the
> table in the docs [0], too.
+1
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
